Thank you so much for all your sweet comments on my last post. I do need to clarify something though…it’s not our wedding anniversary. That’s November 2. It was the 30th anniversary of our first date. But still….30 years is 30 years!
Several of the ladies on Xanga have been blogging about ways to save money. I saved tonight (actually that would be Wednesday night since I haven’t been to bed yet), on dinner. We had left over tater tots from our Memorial Day dinner, and I had left over taco meat in the fridge. I put the tots on a griddle with olive oil, chopped them up and let them brown a little more. Then I stirred in the taco meat, and covered it with shredded cheddar cheese. Sure was good. And there’s still enough for another dinner.
Our neighbors across the street have really made me mad now. They are trapping cats. They’ve always hated cats, and you know…we have “a few.” So do several other people. Another neighbor called me this afternoon, and said she just wanted to let me know that the people next door had a cat trap in the front yard. So I went out, stood out in full view, and took pictures of it. I know they saw me…that was my intention. They know I’m watching them.
I’ve told you about the now deceased dad in that family before. He was a hateful old drunk that hated cats. He tried to drive up on the neighbor’s yard one night to run over their cat. Beth was just a few feet away on the tailgate of that neighbor’s truck. I often saw him put antifreeze along the edge of the street, so the cats would drink it. He also shot one of our kittens, and the kitten of the aforementioned neighbor.
I saw one of them go out this evening and add whatever they are using for bait. So it’s shortly after midnight right now, and I am fixing to go foil their plans. I am going to spray odor eliminator in the trap to get rid of the smell that attracts the cats. Steve said we should trip the trap, so it will be closed and no cats can get in. He said he hopes they catch the biggest, nastiest possum around.
Another cat-loving neighbor said the trap should mysteriously be broken so it won’t work. I’m not going to break it, since it probably belongs to the city pound, but I’m going to deter their stupid plan. Tomorrow I am going to go buy cat repellent, and every night, I will spray that trap. I can stay up waaaaaaaayyyyy later than they do!
EDIT: I’ve got tears rolling down my face, I’ve been laughing so hard. Steve just said I should go pull the bait out of the trap, and leave a note….in “LOLcat speak,” saying, “Thanx, but can we haz cheezburger?”
California School District to Teach Elementary Kids about Homosexuality
The same day the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8 — the state’s constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — a school district in the state essentially decided to disregard the ruling.
The Alameda School Board voted 3-1 on Tuesday in favor of a curriculum that promotes same-sex relationships beginning in the first grade.
“This curriculum defines family as a group of people living together,” said Candi Cushman, education analyst for Focus on the Family Action. “The first-graders are introduced to a book called ‘Who’s In a Family?’ and this book shows herds of male elephants as an example of a family.
“Is this really what we want to be teaching the next generation — that there’s nothing unique about mothers and fathers and that a family is nothing more than a group of individuals?”
Parents are not allowed to opt their kids out of the program, which school officials claim falls under “anti-discrimination” provisions.
Cushman said family advocates in other states need to take note.
“Parents should be on the alert,” she said, “for so-called ‘anti-discrimination’ or ‘safe school’ measures being used as an excuse to push this sort of teaching onto kids as young as 6 or 7 years old.”
Pro-family groups are considering legal action.
FOR MORE INFORMATION Learn how to counteract pro-gay teaching in your school.
For Marriage, the Supreme Test
Our friends in California barely had time to exhale–let alone celebrate–after yesterday’s Proposition 8 victory before the second wave of litigation came crashing down. Less than 24 hours after six justices upheld California’s same-sex “marriage” ban, an unlikely duo announced that another suit had already been filed, this time with the U.S. Supreme Court in its crosshairs.
Although the paperwork was officially filed four days before the Prop 8 ruling came down, it’s expected to get plenty of publicity after today’s press conference in downtown Los Angeles. This time, the Left is calling in some big guns, two men who represented the opposing sides of the legendary Bush v. Gore case in 2000: former U.S. Solicitor General Ted Olson and attorney David Boies. Together, they’ve launched a federal attack on Proposition 8, claiming that homosexuals have a “right” to marry under the U.S. Constitution. As part of the suit, the plaintiffs, two homosexual couples, have asked the U.S. District Court of Northern California for an injunction against Proposition 8, which, if granted, would recreate the “right” of gay and lesbian couples to marry in California.
While FRC and our allies have been prepared to wage this war, none of us expected the battle to arrive on the national stage so quickly. Olson said yesterday, “This is a federal question… [It’s] an issue that will get to the Supreme Court, and I think it could well be this case.” For the suit to land at the doorstep of the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision would have to be appealed from the District Court and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Obviously, those are a lot of “ifs,” particularly since the 14th Amendment argument for counterfeit marriage is nothing new. For years, homosexuals have claimed that defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses. FRC has said it before–and we’ll say it again–there is no federal constitutional “right” to same-sex “marriage.”
The members of Congress who wrote the 14th Amendment in 1868, and the state legislators who ratified it, could not possibly have envisioned or intended this application. Everyone has an equal right to marry in this country, but no one has an unlimited right to marry “the person of their choice.” No individual can marry a child, a close blood relative, or a person who is already married, and in 45 states and the District of Columbia (Vermont and Maine would permit same-sex “marriage” under laws that take effect this September) no one can “marry” a person of the same sex.
Ironically, the very first sentence of the Perry v. Schwarzenegger complaint includes an explanation of why marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman. Quoting Loving v. Virginia, the 1967 case that recognized a right to interracial marriage, it says that “marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival.” But marriage can only be called “fundamental to our very existence and survival” because of its role in encouraging and protecting the only type of relationship which results in the natural reproduction of the human race.
Homosexuals have failed in the court of popular opinion, so now they insist on suing their way to legitimacy in the courts of America. Even if they succeed in making Perry v. Schwarzenegger the Roe v. Wade of marriage, neither side should expect a resolution to this debate. As with abortion, the Supreme Court’s involvement would only make the issue more explosive. As such, it’s time for the far Left to stop asking judges to redefine our most fundamental social institution and leave the decision of marriage where it belongs–in the hands of the American people.
Additional Resources Associated Press: Gay groups call federal marriage suit premature
Hate-Crimes Bill Threatens Texas Children
The Texas Senate could vote today on a hate-crimes bill that applies to children. HB 824 has already passed the House. This is bad news for Texas families.
Under the legislation, children could be prosecuted for hate crimes against those who define themselves by the subjective standard of “sexual preference.” And judges could force kids convicted of hate crimes to attend a re-education program that teaches them to accept the homosexual lifestyle, and perform a “community service” project to serve such groups. A child’s religious conscience would be violated, and parents will have no control over the content of such programs or projects.
Jonathan Saenz, director of legislative affairs at Free Market Foundation, testified against HB 824: “This type of ‘thought police’ law is further evidence of a desire to control people’s minds, shut down free speech, and prevent them from having opposing views, particularly on the issue of homosexuality.”
Please contact your state senator today and ask him or her to vote “No” on HB 824. To find contact information, visit the Free Market Foundation’s Action Center.